summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/chapter5.md
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorJoe Carstairs <me@joeac.net>2026-08-04 15:26:29 +0100
committerJoe Carstairs <me@joeac.net>2026-08-04 15:26:29 +0100
commit0d1b0531cecb6e4fdabee0e4c4e16079328f54e4 (patch)
tree92a62d80bd709968ff9feaea5ed896a3ecf57b94 /chapter5.md
parente377bebedc45b6e4366844e8cfa521b079fb9f72 (diff)
adds a bit about de-politicisation
Diffstat (limited to 'chapter5.md')
-rw-r--r--chapter5.md2
1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions
diff --git a/chapter5.md b/chapter5.md
index 86805b6..0f7b83d 100644
--- a/chapter5.md
+++ b/chapter5.md
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ aren't feasible.
Why are green rhetors failing on the fundamentals? One common suggestion, explored in
chapter 2, is that green rhetors should avoid the motif of catastrophe, or, in a
certain sense, 'apocalypse.' Catastrophic rhetoric has been accused of creating
-resignation, despair, apathy, and dismissal, and of killing genuine politics,
+resignation, despair, apathy, and dismissal, and of killing political contest,
driving the fundamental problems discussed in chapter 1.
This line of thought, together with the fact that 'apocalypse' is treated as a
catastrophic symbol in popular culture, leads Frances Flannery to suggest that